PATCH: Config option to pad SDIO sizes
dcbw at redhat.com
Fri Jun 27 12:09:02 EDT 2008
On Fri, 2008-06-27 at 11:41 -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-06-27 at 11:37 -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-06-27 at 15:22 +0200, Johan Adolfsson wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > Attached is a patch agains 2.6.25 that adds a CONFIG_LIBERTAS_SDIO_PAD_SIZE
> > > option to control padding of sdio packet sizes to work around buggy SDIO
> > > controllers - they are known to exist.. and not always possible to fix in
> > > the
> > > SDIO driver it seems.
> > >
> > > Perhaps the patch could be trimmed a little - any sane compiler would
> > > make it a noop if the PAD_SIZE is 0.
> > Pending a look from Pierre, but I think this would probably _also_ be
> > better as a module parameter rather than a CONFIG option. Since the
> > addition is done anyway, there shouldn't be a real speed hit. The
> > problem is that in the general world, we have no idea what hardware
> > you'll be running this on, and it's better to have one kernel that can
> > run on lots of hardware rather than having to flip config options and
> > recompile. I don't think a module parameter would be an issue in
> > embedded-land either, right?
> > Pierre, is there a better way to fix the crappy SDIO host controller
> > thing, or is padding in libertas_sdio what we're stuck with?
> Bonus points if we could change the pad size at runtime by doing
> something like:
> echo 0x03 > /sys/module/libertas_sdio/parameters/lbs_sdio_padsize
Actually that parameter name is stupid since it's already the SDIO
driver. Just "padsize" would be the best name IMHO.
echo 0x03 > /sys/module/libertas_sdio/parameters/padsize
> since RO module parameters are almost as bad as config options. Not
> sure how that plays with locking internally though.
> libertas-dev mailing list
> libertas-dev at lists.infradead.org
More information about the libertas-dev